Leave it to Clay to force me back into Ropes' edition of Beza in Acts!
Every time he does, I ask myself, "Why didn't I ever notice that before?"

This inquiry by Clay has only one answer that I can think of:

(Assuming B and most MSS. are correct): Luke wanted to make us think that
the Evangelist Mark wrote this sentence; it is precisely in his style.

Now if that doesn't meet your criteria for a plausible answer, I have to
admit that I can't see the foggiest reason. Beza's scribe did the
sensible thing: He wrote an aorist instead of a present, in the style
of Luke!

Oddly, as in previous instances Clay has called to our attention, Nestle
doesn't bother to mention D's variant, though it gives the third/fourth day
variant in vs. 30.

Edward Hobbs

Clay wrote:---->>>>>>>>>>>

After reading Carl and Carlton's posts on the Aorist this morning I was doing
my morning study in Acts and ran across a present hEURISKEI in Acts 10:27 that
left me scratching my head. I did some research on the problem but all I was
able to discover was that Codex Bezae reads hEUREN instead of hEURISKEI.

Could someone explain to me why hEURISKEI is a present in this context?